Hit by Trouba on Dal Colle

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by foshizzle11

100% this, these players should know looking at your feet in open ice while the puck is there, should be a sign you are going to get nailed. This is taught from a young age, these guys should know better. Can't remove a hit like this from the league if they want body contact. I like body contact, I like those big hits, I loved it when Tkachuk nailed Kassian with a few borderline hits. Keep your head up and you wan't get run over. These guys know the consequences and know they could end up with chronic issues after they retire, but they also get paid millions of dollars to do so, they know the risk. Start a new league with no hitting if that is what these guys want. Until then, keep these hits in the game. Clean, hard body checks. No intent to injure.

Yes, high-school educated guys in their mid-twenties are famous for making well-thought out, responsible decisions after weighing all the consequences.

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Yes, high-school educated guys in their mid-twenties are famous for making well-thought out, responsible decisions after weighing all the consequences.

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk

The sport isn’t safe, there is no way to make it ‘safe’.

The NHL needs to continue making strides in educating players and supporting the players health. Pulling players from a game for concussion protocol is a great start. Not to mention, everyone is watching them so we are all learning more about concussions as a result. Eliminating targeted head shots is the right move as well. But, you aren’t immune to a concussion because you got hit in the chest instead of the head. These guys are flying, whiplash can cause concussions, hitting ice/end boards/posts can cause concussions.

They need to be upfront about the risk and offer education, assistance, and reasonable protection, and people who want to play in the league need to accept that to play.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by foshizzle11

100% this, these players should know looking at your feet in open ice while the puck is there, should be a sign you are going to get nailed. This is taught from a young age, these guys should know better. Can't remove a hit like this from the league if they want body contact. I like body contact, I like those big hits, I loved it when Tkachuk nailed Kassian with a few borderline hits. Keep your head up and you wan't get run over. These guys know the consequences and know they could end up with chronic issues after they retire, but they also get paid millions of dollars to do so, they know the risk. Start a new league with no hitting if that is what these guys want. Until then, keep these hits in the game. Clean, hard body checks. No intent to injure.

Any league, or for that matter employer, has the obligation to do whatever they can to avoid risking the long-term health of their employees. Given what we know about concussions now - it isn't enough to say "keep your head up kid".
The fact they get paid millions is 100% irrelevant in my view. I bet Steve Montador's family would trade all of that wealth to have him back.

To be clear though, under the current definition of body checking the Trouba hit is in my view 100% clean.

But it also points to exactly why the definition of hitting needs to evolve. As I've said before, it should be about getting possession of the puck back, and anything beyond that should be a penalty.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Any league, or for that matter employer, has the obligation to do whatever they can to avoid risking the long-term health of their employees. Given what we know about concussions now - it isn't enough to say "keep your head up kid".
The fact they get paid millions is 100% irrelevant in my view. I bet Steve Montador's family would trade all of that wealth to have him back.

To be clear though, under the current definition of body checking the Trouba hit is in my view 100% clean.

But it also points to exactly why the definition of hitting needs to evolve. As I've said before, it should be about getting possession of the puck back, and anything beyond that should be a penalty.

It gets so complicated though. The obvious ones stand out, but here would be my argument for this hit:
- Trouba starts the play flat footed on the point, Dal Colle is quick.
- Trouba saw an opportunity to keep the puck in on a bobbled pass, so he takes a hard stride in and sets his body
- any reasonable person would expect a professional athlete to look up, Trouba commits to the play immediately. Once committed he has a split second to realize Dal Colle is day dreaming.
- Then what? Pull up and allow a 2 on 1? “Poke check him”? (fixation on the puck is another way you never make the NHL as a defenseman). Quick toe drag on a poke check and he’s gone.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

It gets so complicated though. The obvious ones stand out, but here would be my argument for this hit:
- Trouba starts the play flat footed on the point, Dal Colle is quick.
- Trouba saw an opportunity to keep the puck in on a bobbled pass, so he takes a hard stride in and sets his body
- any reasonable person would expect a professional athlete to look up, Trouba commits to the play immediately. Once committed he has a split second to realize Dal Colle is day dreaming.
- Then what? Pull up and allow a 2 on 1? “Poke check him”? (fixation on the puck is another way you never make the NHL as a defenseman). Quick toe drag on a poke check and he’s gone.

Totally agree.
I'm not sure on how to solve for this type of incident, as I don't know that there's much Trouba could have done. I don't see him taking multiple steps, i don't see him leaving his feet, I don't see him targeting the head.
With the speed of play, I'm not sure what he could have done to avoid what happened.

But there's a different in recognizing those challenges and saying "I like big hits" as a previous poster did.
If big hits remain, it should be because they were unavoidable, not because it is perceived to add to the game. Even if one likes the physicality of big hits, we have to start recognizing that it is more important that the sport evolve to mitigate the long-term tragedies.

[Resolute 14]

Truthfully, I can't see any reasonable definition of hitting that can remove this play from the game. In any scenario, Trouba was objectively trying to separate his opponent from the puck.

Argung the removal of this kind of hit is arguing the removal of body checking entirely.

[foshizzle11]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Yes, high-school educated guys in their mid-twenties are famous for making well-thought out, responsible decisions after weighing all the consequences.

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk

Then it is on the parents, coaches, leagues and volunteers of all hockey organizations to educate the players about the risks. With all this talk these days about concussions, you don't think they have been told "it could happen to you" over the years. Sorry but they have been educated to make an informed decision about continuing to play. Many athletes will choose the play now, deal with injuries when I retire motto because they enjoy playing the sport so much that they would rather sacrifice their future.

Education is out there, someone entering into the NHL knows the risks in the year 2020. Maybe not 10 years ago, but I highly doubt any kid going to the NHL thinks they won't get hurt playing professional hockey.

[Jiri Hrdina]

^There is a difference between getting hurt and coming away from the sport with life-altering issues.

[foshizzle11]

Ya, I get that. But you have to look at sport all over the place, there is an example of a NFL star in the making hanging up his boots because he cares about his future. It happens, the education is out there, people still choose to play rough and tough sports like rugby, lacrosse, hockey, football, MMA, boxing because they love it and they know the risks. Education about this stuff is only getting better.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Truthfully, I can't see any reasonable definition of hitting that can remove this play from the game. In any scenario, Trouba was objectively trying to separate his opponent from the puck.

Argung the removal of this kind of hit is arguing the removal of body checking entirely.

Come on man. That type of hit doesn't even happen once a game. Eliminating that won't change anything. How many times have we seen a Flames player flattened like that this season? I recall Backlund last season from Dumba but that type of open ice hit isn't something that happens a lot these days and can be easily removed without changing anything.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Come on man. That type of hit doesn't even happen once a game. Eliminating that won't change anything. How many times have we seen a Flames player flattened like that this season? I recall Backlund last season from Dumba but that type of open ice hit isn't something that happens a lot these days and can be easily removed without changing anything.

Okay, how? No open ice hits? Honest question, what’s the easy rule to remove the Dumba and Trouba puck separating hits? What’s the criteria?

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Come on man. That type of hit doesn't even happen once a game. Eliminating that won't change anything. How many times have we seen a Flames player flattened like that this season? I recall Backlund last season from Dumba but that type of open ice hit isn't something that happens a lot these days and can be easily removed without changing anything.

You're missing the forest for the trees. The argument here is quite literally that you can't use body contact to separate a guy from the puck if his head is down.

That hit was not a charge. it was not blind side. Nor an elbow nor any other dangerous or illegal action. it was not unnecessarily violent. All Trouba did was step into Dal Colle's path and let Dal Colle's own momentum create the contact.

Literally the only thing wrong with that play was on Dal Colle's end. Yet you are talking about punishing Trouba. So yes, if you are going to remove a completely clean hit from the game, then you are arguing the removal of body checking entirely. Because what you argue creates scenarios where players too afraid to make a hit in case someone drops their head at the last moment and players leading with their domes to gain that shield of invincibility. And at that point, you might as well just remove hitting altogether.

[GirlySports]

Whether a person has the puck in his feet or has control is less than a second. How can a defender make a hit?

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

You're missing the forest for the trees. The argument here is quite literally that you can't use body contact to separate a guy from the puck if his head is down.

That hit was not a charge. it was not blind side. Nor an elbow nor any other dangerous or illegal action. it was not unnecessarily violent. All Trouba did was step into Dal Colle's path and let Dal Colle's own momentum create the contact.

Literally the only thing wrong with that play was on Dal Colle's end. Yet you are talking about punishing Trouba. So yes, if you are going to remove a completely clean hit from the game, then you are arguing the removal of body checking entirely. Because what you argue creates scenarios where players too afraid to make a hit in case someone drops their head at the last moment and players leading with their domes to gain that shield of invincibility. And at that point, you might as well just remove hitting altogether.

Regardless of it being within the rules it was a predatorial hit end of story. Trouba lined him up and fully intended to crush him. I can guarantee separating the puck was secondary in Trouba's thought process there as he primarily looking at running him over. I assume if you played hockey you would know players eyes get real big when they see a player with their head down carrying the puck and they aren't thinking about separating pucks, they are looking at an opportunity to flatten a guy. We have to remove this thought process so when players see that they focus more on the puck than taking out the player.

[Lubicon]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I don't think making these infractions discretionary is the answer. The referees already have to make way too many impressionistic decisions, and it's a mess (what even is "charging", anyways?).

I still think all head hits need to be penalised. "Intent" is impossible to determine.

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk

100% agreed, which is why I would say take this decision out of their hands. Head contact = penalty, there is nothing to decide. Then the league video reviews and determines if further action is required.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Regardless of it being within the rules it was a predatorial hit end of story. Trouba lined him up and fully intended to crush him. I can guarantee separating the puck was secondary in Trouba's thought process there as he primarily looking at running him over. I assume if you played hockey you would know players eyes get real big when they see a player with their head down carrying the puck and they aren't thinking about separating pucks, they are looking at an opportunity to flatten a guy. We have to remove this thought process so when players see that they focus more on the puck than taking out the player.

Stepping into a guy's path to hit him square-on is predatory now? I guess we're into the phase of modern internet arguments where we broaden the scope of what defines a concept to the point where the word itself becomes meaningless.

You're really just making my argument for me. What you are asking for is the removal of body contact. You just lack the courage to admit it.

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by Caged Great

Frankly, Dal Colle is just as responsible for this hit as Trouba was. Can't be looking at your feet with the puck at the blue line.

This is the point exactly. The onus isn't on Trouba to softly skate up to Dal Colle and try to stick check the puck away in a contact sport. Doing as much would basically give the Islanders a clear path out of the zone and down the ice on the attack.

If you can't make this hit in the NHL anymore, hitting has no place in the sport. Trouba even lowered himself to be more aligned shoulder to chest, where in the past some guys would have just plowed through his head from an angle.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

...If you can't make this hit in the NHL anymore, hitting has no place in the sport...

I don't understand how some posters leap to the conclusion that removing—or at minimum penalizing—heavy, open-ice hits like this, which makes clear initial contact to the head, is the same thing as removing hitting altogether from the game. IT'S NOT. It is a false-equivelancy. There is a huge difference between checking along the boards between two players jockeying for puck possession, or in front of the net between two players contesting space, and a blind-side hit at centre-ice that catches the recipient completely unaware. The former can and will still happen even if the League does eventually decide to crack down on the latter.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

That's true, it doesn't completely eliminate hitting. It eliminates big open ice hits, and big hits along the wall (i.e. a player coming up the wall out of his own end, or out from behind his own net). So, highlight reel hits, basically. Other hits are still possible. But I think people still have a problem with losing those.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

That's true, it doesn't completely eliminate hitting. It eliminates big open ice hits, and big hits along the wall (i.e. a player coming up the wall out of his own end, or out from behind his own net). So, highlight reel hits, basically. Other hits are still possible. But I think people still have a problem with losing those.

And I get that. I myself am conflicted about it, but nothing is helped in this discussion by retreating into hyperbole.